Skip to content


Bulei Barika Vs. Lokanath Muduli - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCommercial
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.R. No. 35 of 1952
Judge
Reported inAIR1954Ori144; 19(1953)CLT382
ActsDebt Law; Orissa Money Lenders Act, 1939 - Sections 8; Orissa Money Lenders (Amendment) Act, 1950
AppellantBulei Barika
RespondentLokanath Muduli
Advocates:D.N. Sahu, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Excerpt:
.....the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to..........money-lenders only-a money-lender shall not be entitled to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him after the date on which this section comes into force unless he was registered under this act at the time when such loan was advanced:provided that a money-lender shall be entitled to institute a suit to recover a loan advanced by him at any time in the course of two years after the date on which this section comes into force, if he is granted a certificate of registration under section 5 at any time before the expiration of the said years.'the words 'one year' have been amended subsequently by act 24 of 1951 as 'two years'. section 8 came into force on 1-4-1950. of course the period of two years within which a money-lender can get himself registered under the proviso.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Mohapatra, J.

1. This is a revision under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.

Defendant 1 is the petitioner. The plaintiff had brought a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 185/-on a promissory note dated 18-5-50 on the allegation that defendant 1 executed the document. He (the plaintiff) had also made defendants 2 and 3 parties to the suit on the allegation that they were joint with defendant 1. Defendant 1 alone contested the suit. He had taken three points on contest: (i) that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff has not got himself registered as a money-lender; (ii) he denied the loan claimed and the execution of the promissory note; and (iii) that defendants 2 and 3 are separate, and as such, they are not bound.

The learned Court below dismissed the suit against defendants 2 and 3 but decreed the suit against defendant 1 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 184/- with full costs.

2. The learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner (defendant 1) takes up only one point that the suit must stand dismissed on account of the reason that the plaintiff has not registered himself as a money-lender. He relies upon Section 8, Orissa Money Lenders Act. Section 8 runs thus:

'8. Suit for recovery of loan maintainable by registered money-lenders only-

A money-lender shall not be entitled to institute a suit for the recovery of a loan advanced by him after the date on which this section comes into force unless he was registered under this Act at the time when such loan was advanced:Provided that a money-lender shall be entitled to institute a suit to recover a loan advanced by him at any time in the course of two years after the date on which this section comes into force, if he is granted a certificate of registration under Section 5 at any time before the expiration of the said years.'

The words 'one year' have been amended subsequently by Act 24 of 1951 as 'two years'. Section 8 came into force on 1-4-1950. Of course the period of two years within which a money-lender can get himself registered under the proviso has expired on 1-4-52.

The learned lower Court finds:

'Admittedly the plaintiff has got money-lendingtransaction, but he has not got himself registered.... The loan was advanced on 18-5-50 andthe suit was brought on 17-8-51.'

So by the time the matter came up for hearingbefore (me?) the time allowed for the plaintiffto get himself registered under Section 8 has expired.No one appears for the plaintiff-opposite party toshow that as a matter of fact in the meantimethe plaintiff has got himself registered prior to1-4-50 (52?). Section 8 applies to the present caseinasmuch as the loan was advanced, on 18-5-50.There having been nothing to show that theplaintiff has got himself registered within theperiod prescribed under Section 8 the suit must failand the objection must prevail. The petition,therefore, is allowed and the suit is dismissed.There being no appearance for the opposite party,there will be no order as to costs in this Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //